In April 2001, the hearing panel sent applicant a copy
of its proposed decision recommending against admitting him to
the Bar. Thereafter, applicant retained counsel. In May 2001,
applicant excepted to the proposed decision of the hearing panel.
In June 2001, the Board notified applicant that it rejected those
exceptions; the panel issued its decision recommending that this
court deny applicant's application to practice law. In July
2001, applicant filed a motion in this court to present
additional evidence, in which he requested leave to offer three
third-party character references. The Bar objected to that
motion and, in October 2001, this court denied it.

The Board based its decision not to recommend applicant
for admission on several factors. First, the Board noted that
applicant's conduct was of a type that could have (but would not
necessarily have) led to disbarment, had it occurred while
applicant was a practicing lawyer. Using the ABA Standards as
guidelines, the Board took note of the presence of the following
mitigating factors: (1) personal or emotional problems; (2) full
and free disclosure to the Board and cooperative attitude in the
proceedings; (3) good character or reputation; (4) interim
rehabilitation; and (5) remorse. The Board viewed as an
aggravating factor applicant's conduct immediately after the
theft, including his repeated denials of involvement and his
efforts to conceal the crime. The Board found that that post-crime conduct cast substantial doubt on applicant's honesty,
fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the law.

Although the Board considered the theft to be a single
and anomalous act of misconduct that was out of character with
applicant's general behavior, it found that his acts of
restitution and remorse did not commence until he was caught.
The Board also was concerned about the absence of any current
personal or professional character evidence in the record
supporting applicant's request for admission, particularly in
light of the fact that the theft occurred five years before the
hearing. Finally, the Board observed that, although applicant
attributed his conduct to the stress created by his family
situation, that stress was not so abnormal or unique as to
eliminate the risk of a recurrence in the future. Moreover, the
Board was concerned that, notwithstanding the psychologist's
recommendation that applicant enter into long-term therapy to
address the underlying psychological reasons for his behavior,
applicant had not done so. In those circumstances, the Board
concluded that applicant had not proved by clear and convincing
evidence that he would be able to withstand the stress of the
legal profession and that, consequently, he had not met his
burden of proving that he possesses the requisite good moral
character and fitness to practice law.

An applicant for admission to the Bar must show that he
or she presently is a person of good moral character. ORS
9.220(2)(a). An applicant must prove that he has the requisite
character by clear and convincing evidence. In re Rowell, 305 Or
584, 588, 754 P2d 905 (1988). That standard requires an
applicant to show that it is "highly probable" that he has good
moral character. In re Monaco, 317 Or 366, 370 n 4, 856 P2d 311
(1993). Any significant doubts about an applicant's character
should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying
admission to the applicant. In re Jaffee, 319 Or 172, 177, 874
P2d 1299 (1994).

Given that circumstance, the crucial inquiry is whether
applicant's character has reformed sufficiently in the interim to
permit his admission to the Bar. Jaffee, 319 Or at 177; Rowell,
305 Or at 588. In his brief to this court, applicant contends
that "he has met his burden of proof of present good moral
character in essentially the only way he can, and that is by his
actions since the event." By that, he means remaining crime-free
and pursuing his academic goals of, among other things,
completing law school, passing the Oregon Bar Examination, and
pursuing an electrical engineering degree.

This court has observed that reformation is difficult,
but not impossible, to prove to the court's satisfaction.
Jaffee, 319 Or at 177. The court has considered, as evidence of
reformation, character testimony from those who know and have had
an opportunity to observe the applicant, participation in
activities that benefit society, and an applicant's forthright
acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of his or her past actions.
Jaffee, 319 Or at 178; Rowell, 305 Or at 590-91. In the present
proceeding, however, applicant has not offered any evidence from
which this court could conclude that applicant's character has
reformed sufficiently to permit his admission to the Bar.

Relatedly, applicant contends that the Board erred in
failing to give him the opportunity to present additional
evidence. He asserts that the character hearing should not have
been an adversarial proceeding and that, considering the
importance of the proceeding, applicant's obvious inexperience,
and the fact that applicant appeared pro se, the Board should
have "advised [him] of the importance of such current [character]
references."

Applicant misapprehends the Board's role. The Board's
role is not to protect applicant. Instead, it is to protect the
public through proceedings like those that it conducted in
applicant's case. Applicant was fully informed that he bore the
burden of proof to establish his good moral character and fitness
to practice. It was incumbent on him to prepare for the hearing
so that he would know the type of evidence that the Board and
this court have in the past considered in determining whether an
applicant has established meaningful character reformation.
Applicant's statements that he has reformed, without more, are
insufficient.

Applicant's application for admission to the Oregon
State Bar is denied.

1. The Board twice provided applicant with a copy of the
Oregon State Bar's Rules for Admission and specifically informed
applicant that he bore the burden of proof at the hearing. Rule
for Admission 9.45(6) provides:

"Burden of Proof. To be entitled to admission to the
practice of law in Oregon, an applicant must establish
by clear and convincing evidence that she or he has the
requisite character and fitness to practice law."

2. Applicant was not convicted of theft, but such a
conviction is not necessary to establish a lack of good moral
character. As noted, ORS 9.220(b) refers to "acts or conduct."
Thus, it is sufficient that the record show that an applicant
committed acts that constitute the offense. See, e.g.,

Kimmell, 332 Or at 485 (holding, in disciplinary context, that,
because disciplinary action for violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(2) and (3) is based on accused's conduct rather than on
accused's conviction, proof of conviction was not required to
find a violation).